VespaGuy:It's just a reflection of the entitlement generation and pandering to snowflakes. How *dare* she purchase an expensive piece of electronics (that she continually pays for monthly) and not only set rules, but remind me that it's not mine!!

Let me re-phrase it for you: She bought herself an iphone, turned it into a goddamned dog collar, and handed it to her child.

Can someone start up a drive for this kid? I'd donate 50 cents to buying him a cheap android phone or used iphone. Then, I'd make damned sure that the local news organization which covered the story published a follow-up article about how the internet got together, gave this kid an ACTUAL christmas gift and not a glorified dog collar, and made his mom look like the ass she is while doing so.

Lexx:VespaGuy: It's just a reflection of the entitlement generation and pandering to snowflakes. How *dare* she purchase an expensive piece of electronics (that she continually pays for monthly) and not only set rules, but remind me that it's not mine!!

Let me re-phrase it for you: She bought herself an iphone, turned it into a goddamned dog collar, and handed it to her child.

Can someone start up a drive for this kid? I'd donate 50 cents to buying him a cheap android phone or used iphone. Then, I'd make damned sure that the local news organization which covered the story published a follow-up article about how the internet got together, gave this kid an ACTUAL christmas gift and not a glorified dog collar, and made his mom look like the ass she is while doing so.

But I'm lazy

And childless.

:::sigh:::Another one who thinks that if the kid "owns" his phone that he becomes invincible to his parents rules.

VespaGuy:Lexx: VespaGuy: It's just a reflection of the entitlement generation and pandering to snowflakes. How *dare* she purchase an expensive piece of electronics (that she continually pays for monthly) and not only set rules, but remind me that it's not mine!!

Let me re-phrase it for you: She bought herself an iphone, turned it into a goddamned dog collar, and handed it to her child.

Can someone start up a drive for this kid? I'd donate 50 cents to buying him a cheap android phone or used iphone. Then, I'd make damned sure that the local news organization which covered the story published a follow-up article about how the internet got together, gave this kid an ACTUAL christmas gift and not a glorified dog collar, and made his mom look like the ass she is while doing so.

But I'm lazy

And childless.

:::sigh:::Another one who thinks that if the kid "owns" his phone that he becomes invincible to his parents rules.

*sigh*

Another one who thinks that being a legal guardian of a child means you can control them absolutely.

I could not agree more. It belongs to him when it is convenient for the mother. It is an power move so she can maintain control of her son a little while longer. It is a sad, pathetic attempt and any other adult should publicly shame this woman for such deplorable behavior.

The thing is this - if they're thinking about it, a parent gives a kid a phone for their own convenience, not the kid's convenience or entertainment. Those things are ancillary.

I could not agree more. It belongs to him when it is convenient for the mother. It is an power move so she can maintain control of her son a little while longer. It is a sad, pathetic attempt and any other adult should publicly shame this woman for such deplorable behavior.

The thing is this - if they're thinking about it, a parent gives a kid a phone for their own convenience, not the kid's convenience or entertainment. Those things are ancillary.

ITT: People with Mommy/Daddy issues.

THIS. So much this!

Many of the "anti-mom" comments sound like angry teens themselves. At a certain age, you stop identifying with the 13 year old, and start identifying with the mom. Grow up, work hard, get married, buy a house, start a family. Suddenly "Daddy never let me hang posters in my bedroom!" doesn't seem like such a big deal.

Another one who thinks that being a legal guardian of a child means you can control them absolutely.

If you think that setting rules about cellphone usage is synonymous with "absolute control", you might be a teenager.

I'm saying that the expectation that someone would, or should, behave according to your will, simply because you will it, is a sign you might not be able to deal with human being who don't work for you.

The sooner children gain agency and realize that their parents are not absolute existences, the better.

I could not agree more. It belongs to him when it is convenient for the mother. It is an power move so she can maintain control of her son a little while longer. It is a sad, pathetic attempt and any other adult should publicly shame this woman for such deplorable behavior.

The thing is this - if they're thinking about it, a parent gives a kid a phone for their own convenience, not the kid's convenience or entertainment. Those things are ancillary.

ITT: People with Mommy/Daddy issues.

Then the parent shouldn't lie that it's a gift, exaggerate their generosity, BLOG about it, and then call the local newspaper. My parents gave me an emergencies-only prepaid cell phone, and didn't insult my intelligence by pretending it was a Christmas present.

Another one who thinks that being a legal guardian of a child means you can control them absolutely.

If you think that setting rules about cellphone usage is synonymous with "absolute control", you might be a teenager.

I'm saying that the expectation that someone would, or should, behave according to your will, simply because you will it, is a sign you might not be able to deal with human being who don't work for you.

Who said anything about "behaving according to their will"? Did you read the article? We're talking about cell phone usage rules for a 13 year old. The strictest rules are "don't take it to school", "give it to me at night", and "you're responsible for a replacement if you break it". That's about it. The rest of the "rules" are just good motherly advice (YMMV) - listen to different music than mainstream stuff, don't send dirty photos, don't be a zombie, etc.

From that you get someone behaving "according to your will"? Seriously?

The sooner children gain agency and realize that their parents are not absolute existences, the better. I don't have children.

Another one who thinks that being a legal guardian of a child means you can control them absolutely.

If you think that setting rules about cellphone usage is synonymous with "absolute control", you might be a teenager.

I'm saying that the expectation that someone would, or should, behave according to your will, simply because you will it, is a sign you might not be able to deal with human being who don't work for you.

Who said anything about "behaving according to their will"? Did you read the article? We're talking about cell phone usage rules for a 13 year old. The strictest rules are "don't take it to school", "give it to me at night", and "you're responsible for a replacement if you break it". That's about it. The rest of the "rules" are just good motherly advice (YMMV) - listen to different music than mainstream stuff, don't send dirty photos, don't be a zombie, etc.

From that you get someone behaving "according to your will"? Seriously?

The sooner children gain agency and realize that their parents are not absolute existences, the better. I don't have children.

Am I the only childless wonder who thinks that a parent's job is to provide food, shelter, love, opportunities for self improvement, and a good role model, and NOTHING ELSE?

How is establishing rules over-parenting? The problem here is that this is being viewed as anything but normal, especially by the mom. She's an attention whore for sure, yelling to anyone who'll listen that she is so awesome and has it all figured out and we should all pay attention. In fact, this is normal parenting. Congratulations you dumb blogger, you're getting really excited and worked up over something thousands of non-blog moms are already doing: raising kids with manners-- only they're not expecting the press to get excited over it. Next up she'll blog about a new invention called the "chore wheel" which notifies children in a fair manner who is responsible for which duties during the week. If those duties are adequately performed, she gives them a weekly sum of money... an "allowance" as it were.

Another one who thinks that being a legal guardian of a child means you can control them absolutely.

If you think that setting rules about cellphone usage is synonymous with "absolute control", you might be a teenager.

I'm saying that the expectation that someone would, or should, behave according to your will, simply because you will it, is a sign you might not be able to deal with human being who don't work for you.

Who said anything about "behaving according to their will"? Did you read the article? We're talking about cell phone usage rules for a 13 year old. The strictest rules are "don't take it to school", "give it to me at night", and "you're responsible for a replacement if you break it". That's about it. The rest of the "rules" are just good motherly advice (YMMV) - listen to different music than mainstream stuff, don't send dirty photos, don't be a zombie, etc.

From that you get someone behaving "according to your will"? Seriously?

The sooner children gain agency and realize that their parents are not absolute existences, the better. I don't have children.

Am I the only childless wonder who thinks that a parent's job is to provide food, shelter, love, opportunities for self improvement, and a good role model, and NOTHING ELSE?

Far from it. There are plenty of childless folks who have all the answers to parenting. Quite a few in this thread, I'm sure. At least you admit you have no idea what you're talking about.

I don't think everyone needs to be a parent. I don't think parents are better than people without kids. And it's true, some people are simply too selfish to ever be good parents. But here's the thing: If you're so selfish that you can't conceivably care for a child, then not having kids doesn't really solve the problem. Don't get me wrong: I'm super happy that you're self-aware enough not to procreate, but I'm guessing you're still kind of a selfish, shiatty person.

Am I the only childless wonder who thinks that a parent's job is to provide food, shelter, love, opportunities for self improvement, and a good role model, and NOTHING ELSE?

A lot of those "opportunities for self-improvement" come as a result of an ability to adhere to rules and boundaries of acceptable behavior.

You speak about parenthood as if it's a combination concierge/life coach service. But...parents are not only responsible for their children's existence and well-being, they are also held responsible for their behavior. Like, legally, and morally as well.

When those fact sinks in (at least among normal, non-smothering/non-neglectful parents), it tends to spur a desire to shape said children's behavior - not only in an attempt to make them better people, but also keep one's own ass out of trouble and embarrassment. Think of it as a sort of "protecting your investment" mentality.

Some parents take it too far with helicopter parenting, but this isn't really an example of that. Attention-whoring? Maybe.

Am I the only childless wonder who thinks that a parent's job is to provide food, shelter, love, opportunities for self improvement, and a good role model, and NOTHING ELSE?

A lot of those "opportunities for self-improvement" come as a result of an ability to adhere to rules and boundaries of acceptable behavior.

You speak about parenthood as if it's a combination concierge/life coach service. But...parents are not only responsible for their children's existence and well-being, they are also held responsible for their behavior. Like, legally, and morally as well.

When those fact sinks in (at least among normal, non-smothering/non-neglectful parents), it tends to spur a desire to shape said children's behavior - not only in an attempt to make them better people, but also keep one's own ass out of trouble and embarrassment. Think of it as a sort of "protecting your investment" mentality.

Some parents take it too far with helicopter parenting, but this isn't really an example of that. Attention-whoring? Maybe.

The only way my parents EVER shaped my behavior was by example. And it occurred like 10 years AFTER they gave up trying, when some of the shiat they said started to actually make some sense. Far too much of what parents do is completely arbitrary, and cannot be rationally deconstructed to actually be "in my child's best interests".

VespaGuy::::sigh:::Another one who thinks that if the kid "owns" his phone that he becomes invincible to his parents rules.

You sound like you were lucky enough not to have passive-aggressive extremely manipulative parents. Maybe you need to have experienced manipulative giving a few times before you get sensitive to it, I don't know.

No one in this thread has advocated for not having rules, or for saying that a parent can't restrict use of the phone/take a phone away for punishment. Heck, no one in here is even saying the kid necessarily needs an iPhone.

Heck, those people coming out against the mom are largely saying the smart thing for the kid to do is say NO to the phone, not insist on misusing it.

It's not about the rules, it's about the way they were presented. Which goes hand-in-hand with the attention whoring, because it's all about the "look at me" thing. There's the "look at me" to the world from a "mommy-blogger" which is annoying, and then there's the "look at me" to the kid, essentially getting all smug and full of herself because in a comparison with a kid, she's rich.

Heck, I would not have a problem with mom telling her kid he has to turn his own personally-bought phone off and put it in a basket in the evening because in our house we have live face-to-face family conversation at the dinner table, if that's the house rules. It ain't about rules.

itazurakko:VespaGuy: :::sigh:::Another one who thinks that if the kid "owns" his phone that he becomes invincible to his parents rules.

You sound like you were lucky enough not to have passive-aggressive extremely manipulative parents. Maybe you need to have experienced manipulative giving a few times before you get sensitive to it, I don't know.

No one in this thread has advocated for not having rules, or for saying that a parent can't restrict use of the phone/take a phone away for punishment. Heck, no one in here is even saying the kid necessarily needs an iPhone.

Heck, those people coming out against the mom are largely saying the smart thing for the kid to do is say NO to the phone, not insist on misusing it.

It's not about the rules, it's about the way they were presented. Which goes hand-in-hand with the attention whoring, because it's all about the "look at me" thing. There's the "look at me" to the world from a "mommy-blogger" which is annoying, and then there's the "look at me" to the kid, essentially getting all smug and full of herself because in a comparison with a kid, she's rich.

Heck, I would not have a problem with mom telling her kid he has to turn his own personally-bought phone off and put it in a basket in the evening because in our house we have live face-to-face family conversation at the dinner table, if that's the house rules. It ain't about rules.

Molavian:I don't think everyone needs to be a parent. I don't think parents are better than people without kids. And it's true, some people are simply too selfish to ever be good parents. But here's the thing: If you're so selfish that you can't conceivably care for a child, then not having kids doesn't really solve the problem. Don't get me wrong: I'm super happy that you're self-aware enough not to procreate, but I'm guessing you're still kind of a selfish, shiatty person.

I thought it was a good idea until I started reading the list and she sounds more like a nazi now than a good parent. A good parent infers his kids judgment, not "give me this phone and ill give it back to you tomorrow morning every day".

You have to back out to the front page of her blog in order to really understand where she's coming from, which is that she believes that she has these Really Really Super Deep Thoughts About Being A Parent and that her kids are mere reflections of her own innate greatness, which she is generously sharing with the world. No one writes something like Rule #1 unless they're trying to keep a leash on their kid. No one sane expects that a teenage boy won't use something like this for porn. No one with the slightest smidgen of respect for their child as an individual makes it a condition of a gift like this that the recipient has to listen to music that they personally find sufficiently original and non-mainstream.

Not only do I hope that the kid rejects the phone, sooner or later, but that the last thing he says to her when he leaves for college is, "Mom, I just wanted you to know, the iPhone you got me five years ago? With all the rules? That you blogged about? I looked at porn every single day on it. MILFs, mostly."